HCP program no 'license to kill'

By DAVID B. ALLEN, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Plan program may not be perfect but it is far from the caricature of a developers' dream portrayed in the Post-Intelligencer's "License to Kill" series. Misleading statements and outdated examples give readers a grossly inaccurate view of how the HCP program works to protect imperiled species while assuring landowners the right to carry out lawful activities on their property.

Much of the "take" authorized by the plans is in the form of habitat loss or disturbance, and often does not result in the direct death of individuals of a protected species. While all HCPs minimize and mitigate the effects of a project, a stated goal of many HCPs is to contribute to species recovery by making real contributions to the overall improvement of a species' status. As the series noted, Congress' intent for the HCP program was to have the plans contribute to species' long-term conservation.

It is simply wrong to state, "most (HCPs) fail to predict how many creatures will be killed or harmed. Few spell out an exit strategy if things go wrong."

In fact, all HCPs approved by the service have an accompanying "take" permit that authorizes the incidental take of species, which may include impacts to habitat during otherwise lawful activities. Each permit specifies the amount and type of take authorized for each species, or incorporates by reference this information from the HCP. It is not unusual for the type and amount of take authorized by the permit to be reduced from what a landowner proposed in his draft HCP application.

Many older HCPs contain contingencies to address changed and unforeseen circumstances, while all HCPs developed under the No Surprises Rule protect species, as well as landowners, by requiring HCP applicants to address future threats to the species and to plan for foreseeable changes, including providing assured funding for such possible contingencies. Some other important facts:

HCPs are developed through a public process and in fact, public comment periods for the more complex HCPs are extended beyond those required by federal law.

Comments are taken seriously and can result in changes to the final HCP. The public has been involved at a very early stage in all of the larger plans, such as Washington's Forest and Fish HCP, that involve local and state governments.

Contrary to suggestions in the series, most HCPs require tracking the status of the populations and individuals of the species they cover, when it is feasible to do so. When it is not feasible to track populations or individuals of the species, their habitat is tracked. When the Fish and Wildlife Service reviews the status of any species, the review takes into account the positive and negative effects of HCPs.

There is no doubt that protecting endangered species while allowing private landowners to make a living is a delicate balance, but by any measure, the HCP program has been very successful at protecting existing habitat and restoring degraded habitat for dozens of listed and unlisted species.

The upfront planning that HCPs require protects important habitat that otherwise could be destroyed or degraded. The investment by our society is reasonable considering the benefits these planning efforts provide to species, private landowners and communities.